A Rag Doll

[Van]

You are arguing with an idiot! Just put him on ignore & not let him irritate you...that's what I did:smilewinkgrin:

Folks, note how Calvinists dodge the topic and address the qualifications and character of their opponent, thus they use the logical fallacy of arguing against the man (ad homenim) demonstrating truth is not on their side.

 

[Van]

The Rag Doll's tattered stitches

1) Is it wrong to believe fallen mankind is able to seek God and trust in Christ, in light of God revealing Himself and providing the gospel of Christ? Matthew 23:13 tells of unregenerate men who were seeking God for they were actually "entering heaven" when they were blocked by false teaching. Thus some fallen men, when given the grace of God's revelation are able to respond some of the time.

2) Did God really choose some foreseen individuals with or without foreseen faith when He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world? If this was a corporate election then God did not choose any specific individuals, just the target group of His redemption plan, those who would be redeemed by His Redeemer. The reason the election of Ephesians 1:4 must be corporate is that several verses (2 Thessalonians 2:13; James 2:5, 1 Peter 2:9-10, and 1 Corinthians 1:26-30) indicate God chooses us for salvation individually during our lifetime after we believe in Christ. It is irrational to nullify the majority verses on the topic in favor of one vague verse (Ephesians 1:4) that probably is corporate because of the "chosen in Him" rather than chosen phrase points to an affiliated group.

3) Is our faith in Christ really instilled supernaturally, i.e. a gift of faith? What does scripture say, 1 Corinthians 12:3 and Ephesians 2:8? No one can "say" (except by the Spirit) Jesus is Lord. The idea is not our ability to utter the phrase, the folks of Matthew 7:21-23 said "Lord Lord." No the idea is that we cannot say with truth that Jesus is Lord of our life unless we have been born again, and indwelt with the Spirit of Christ. And no one who is born again will say Jesus is accursed. Therefore 1 Corinthians 12:3 provides no support for the "gift of pre-salvation faith."

Next we have Ephesians 2:8 which does not say faith is a gift, it says salvation is the gift of God by grace through faith. Our faith provides our access to the grace in which we stand. Romans 5:2. It is God who credits our faith as righteousness, Romans 4:4-5,24.

4) Does choosing to seek God and trust in Christ make salvation dependent on man and not on God? Does choosing to seek God and will to be saved make salvation dependent upon man? No, Romans 9:16 tells us salvation does not depend upon the man that wills or runs but upon God. But this verse does teach a man can will to be saved. Something Calvinism denies.

5) Does Christ making it possible for all men to be saved mean He does not actually saved all who are saved? Here we have the false choice, if Jesus became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world (1 John 2:2) that means He does not save each and every person given to Him by God. No, the answer is both, He provides the opportunity for salvation, and He provides salvation for those who "receive" the reconciliation.

6) Does not the "from our point of view" really dodge the conflict over when we were chosen, after we believed or before creation? The "from our point of view" does not resolve whether we were chosen individually before the foundation of the world, or chosen during our lifetime through faith in the truth. It embraces the paradox, rather than resolving it by coming to the conclusion that the election before creation was corporate, not individual.

7) Does scripture say no one would ever make the right choice unless God supernaturally intervened and caused that choice? (Revelation 3:20, Joshua 24:15, Hebrews 3:7-8, 2 Corinthians 3:5). Revelation 3:20 tells us (addressing the tares in the church) it is God who makes the first move; He reveals Himself (knocks at the door) but them some tares hear and open that door. In Joshua 24:15 we see that some men find it disagreeable to serve the Lord, but others, including Joshua and his house choose to serve the Lord. In Hebrews 3:7-8, tells that some men hardened their hearts [by the practice of sin] against the Lord. Thus they initially had the capacity to hear and understand the Lord, and respond to the milk of the gospel. In 2 Corinthians 3:5, says our "adequacy" comes from God. Thus it too teaches some of us can receive God's revelation. So four for four, not a shred of support for the premise we cannot seek God and trust in Christ, given the light of God's revelation in His gospel.

8) Is Calvinism's only err the cart before the horse sequencing of choosing some individuals for salvation then sending Christ to die as a ransom for all? No Calvinism's sequence of events described in scripture gets the cart before the horse again and again. But the primary problem, that which drives all the rest, is the assumption that the election of Ephesians 1:4 is individual, not corporate. This drives atonement limited by who Christ died for, rather than who receives the reconciliation. This drives the regeneration before faith view, rather than God choosing us through faith, saving us by grace through faith view of many scriptures, such as John 1:12-13. Again it is irrational to accept an assumed meaning of one vague verse, and use that assumption to nullify the balance of verses on the topic.

9) Do Arminians err when they put God's choice of individuals after they believe? No, Arminians do not err when they put God's choice of individuals after they believe. But they do err when they assume, with Calvinists, that the Election of Ephesians 1:4 was of individuals with or without foreseen faith. Our individual election occurs during our lifetime after we come to faith, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Peter 2:9-10, James 2:5, and 1 Corinthians 1:26-30.

 

[saturneptune]

And yet you put your 2 cents in on every conversation that is about Calvinism. It isn't like anyone invited you to the thread. You freely chose to engage on a debate over a person you say you don't follow. :BangHead:

Not even going to respond to your novel long post except to say there is a difference between Calvin and Calvinism. It is obvious from your posts you understand neither. Actually, it is not like anyone invited you to this board, especially a person that practices plagiarism and gives false educational credentials. Three point infraction or not, my respect for you is zero, and by the way, it has expired.

 

[Van]

Not even going to respond to your novel long post except to say there is a difference between Calvin and Calvinism. It is obvious from your posts you understand neither. Actually, it is not like anyone invited you to this board, especially a person that practices plagiarism and gives false educational credentials. Three point infraction or not, my respect for you is zero, and by the way, it has expired.

Yet another off topic post dealing with personal attacks, rather than substance. Here is the Calvinist play book. 1) Insult the opponent, i.e. you know nothing about Calvinism, 2) misrepresent your opponent, i.e. you do not think God is all powerful, 3) shift discussion from the topic to the character and qualifications of the opponent, i.e. false educational credentials, and 4) make false assertions concerning biblical teachings without any reference to germane scripture. Repeat, 1,2,3 and 4 until the thread is closed. Hut hut.

 

[saturneptune]

Yet another off topic post dealing with personal attacks, rather than substance. Here is the Calvinist play book. 1) Insult the opponent, i.e. you know nothing about Calvinism, 2) misrepresent your opponent, i.e. you do not think God is all powerful, 3) shift discussion from the topic to the character and qualifications of the opponent, i.e. false educational credentials, and 4) make false assertions concerning biblical teachings without any reference to germane scripture. Repeat, 1,2,3 and 4 until the thread is closed. Hut hut.

It is not a tactic, and by the way, I was not addressing you, nor was your opinion asked.

 

[Van]

Calvinism is like a rag doll, stitched together using verses that do not fit. Christ laying down His life as a ransom for all does not fit with Limited Atonement. Christ speaking in parables so unregenerates will not understand, and be forgiven does not fit with Total Spiritual Inability.
Being chosen individually for salvation through faith in the truth does not fit with Unconditional Election. Men actually entering heaven being blocked by false teachings does no fit with Irresistible Grace.

But the Rag Doll can be fixed, the Reformed Doctrine of the TULIP can be reformed, conformed to the image of scripture.

Here is the Biblical Doctrine:

1) God before creation chose the Word to be His Lamb, His Redeemer, 1 Peter 1:19-20.

2) When, before creation God chose His Redeemer, as a consequence He chose corporately those who would be redeemed. You do not choose a redeemer without a plan to redeem. Ephesians 1:4

3) God's redemption plan included causing all those chosen and placed spiritually in Christ to be born again, becoming spiritual children of God. John 1:12-13

4) Each redeemed person was sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit as a pledge for our predestined adoption as physical children of God, the redemption of our body. Romans 8:23

5) God chooses those whose faith He credits as righteousness, Romans 4:4-5,24, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 during our lifetime after we have lived without mercy, 1 Peter 2:9-10

6) Once saved, born anew, our faith is protected such that we are kept by the power of God for our reward in heaven. 1 Peter 1:3-5. Hence once actually saved, we are saved forever.